This joint resolution instructs Wyoming’s Legislature to apply to Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution for a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments that (1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, (2) limit federal power and jurisdiction, and (3) limit terms of federal officeholders. The application is accompanied by explicit reservations that constrain how Congress and the convention may act, including statements that Congress’s role is ministerial and that the convention must be limited to the listed topics.
The resolution also sets practical rules and preferences: it asserts one-state/one-vote decision-making, bars any amendment that would affect the Bill of Rights, reserves each state legislature’s exclusive authority to appoint and recall delegates, and asks Congress to choose legislative ratification (rather than state conventions). Finally, Wyoming directs its Secretary of State to transmit the application to federal leaders and other state legislative presiding officers and declares the application a continuing one until two-thirds of state legislatures apply on the same subject.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill applies to Congress to call an Article V convention narrowly tasked to propose amendments on fiscal restraints, limits on federal power, and term limits, while explicitly reserving certain procedural and substantive constraints. It frames Congress’s role as limited to setting a reasonable time and place for the initial meeting and denies Congress authority to set convention rules or delegate selection.
Who It Affects
State legislatures that may join the application, members of Congress and federal officeholders targeted by term limits or jurisdictional limits, state officials responsible for appointing and potentially recalling delegates, and legal counsel who would advise on convention mechanics and any ensuing litigation.
Why It Matters
The resolution is part of a coordinated state-level strategy to trigger an Article V convention; it packages specific limitations designed to constrain both Congress and any convention. For practitioners, it raises immediate questions about implementation mechanics, inter-state coordination, and the legal enforceability of the reservations the states attach to their applications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Wyoming’s joint resolution is a formal request to Congress under Article V: it asks Congress to call a convention of the states, but it does so with a detailed list of what that convention may address — fiscal restraints on federal spending, rollback or limits on federal jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials and members of Congress. The resolution does not sit idle; it defines the scope of the request and sets expectations for how the process should be run.
The resolution goes beyond asking for a convention by spelling out several reservations meant to cabin both Congress and the convention. It states Congress’s only job is to set a reasonable time and place for the convention’s first meeting, rejects any congressional authority to set rules or determine delegate numbers, affirms that state legislatures — not Congress — appoint delegates, and declares the convention’s voting should be on a one-state/one-vote basis.
It also expressly excludes any proposal that would alter the Bill of Rights and signals Wyoming’s preference that ratification be conducted through state legislatures.Practically, Wyoming makes its application continuing until two-thirds of the states have filed similar applications on the same topic, so the resolution functions as a standing invitation rather than a one-off petition. It also directs the Secretary of State to distribute copies of the resolution widely — to federal leaders, Wyoming’s congressional delegation, and presiding officers in other state legislatures — to encourage coordination.
Finally, the Legislature reserves the right to instruct and to recall its delegates if they stray from those instructions, putting state-level control at the center of the delegation process.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution limits the convention’s subject matter to three categories: fiscal restraints on the federal government, limits on federal power and jurisdiction, and term limits for federal officials and members of Congress.
It asserts that Congress’s only power in calling the convention is ministerial — to name a reasonable time and place for the initial meeting — and denies Congress authority to set convention rules or delegate apportionment.
The Legislature declares delegates will be chosen by state legislatures, may be recalled by Wyoming, and that convention votes will proceed on a one-state/one-vote basis.
The application explicitly bars consideration of any amendment that would amend, modify, or repeal any provision of the Bill of Rights.
Wyoming makes the application continuing until two-thirds of state legislatures apply on the same subject and directs its Secretary of State to transmit the resolution to federal leaders and to presiding officers in other states.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Formal application to Congress under Article V
This section is the operative petition: Wyoming formally applies to Congress for a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments imposing fiscal restraints, limiting federal power and jurisdiction, and limiting terms of federal officeholders. Its practical effect is to place Wyoming among the states seeking an Article V convention on those three discrete topics; as written, it does not create any immediate federal change but serves as a building block in the two-thirds-state threshold required by Article V.
Reservations constraining Congress’s role and delegate selection
Clauses (i) through (iii) assert that Congress’s role is ministerial — to set a reasonable time and place for the convention’s initial meeting — and deny Congress the authority to establish rules for the convention or determine how many delegates each state sends. The provisions place the power to appoint delegates squarely with state legislatures, a posture designed to prevent federal intervention in delegate selection or convention governance.
One-state/one-vote rule and protect the Bill of Rights
Clause (iv) states the convention must operate on a one-state/one-vote basis, which affects strategic coalition-building and voting dynamics. Clause (v) adds an absolute substantive reservation: any amendment that would touch the Bill of Rights is off-limits. That limitation is a self-imposed constraint intended to reassure constituencies concerned about broad constitutional revision.
Ratification preference and delegate oversight
Clause (vi) recommends Congress select ratification by state legislatures rather than special conventions, signaling a preference for the more traditional, legislatively centered route. Clause (vii) gives Wyoming the explicit ability to instruct and recall its delegates for breaches of duty, formalizing state oversight and adding a mechanism for enforcing state-level constraints on delegate behavior during the convention.
Continuing application until two-thirds of states apply
This section declares Wyoming’s application ‘continuing’ under Article V, meaning Wyoming treats the petition as open and in effect until at least two-thirds of state legislatures have submitted applications on the same subject. The practical implication is administrative continuity: Wyoming intends its application to remain effective during the multi-state coordination process necessary to trigger Congress’s obligation under Article V.
Transmission and notification duties
Section 4 mandates that Wyoming’s Secretary of State send copies of the resolution to federal leaders, the state’s congressional delegation, and presiding officers in other states. The provision is procedural but important: it operationalizes outreach and encourages other legislatures to coordinate similar applications.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State legislatures seeking greater federal restraint — The resolution gives sympathetic state legislatures a template and formal Wyoming support for a coordinated Article V strategy to pursue fiscal and jurisdictional limits.
- Advocacy organizations favoring term limits and fiscal constraints — They gain a clear, state-backed mechanism to press for constitutional change and to mobilize other states around narrow amendment topics.
- Wyoming voters who prioritize state sovereignty and fiscal restraint — If the proposed subject matter aligns with their preferences, this resolution advances a path (via state action) to constitutional amendments reflective of those priorities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal officials and agencies targeted by jurisdictional rollback or fiscal restraints — Potential amendments could curtail programs, funding, or authorities used by executive agencies and Congress, producing operational and budgetary impacts.
- State legislatures and officials charged with selecting and managing delegates — Legislatures will incur administrative and political costs in recruiting, instructing, and potentially recalling delegates; those processes can be legally and politically contentious.
- Legal practitioners and courts — Because Article V mechanics are unsettled, the resolution increases the likelihood of litigation over questions such as scope, delegate powers, and ratification procedures, imposing costs on public and private litigants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate but conflicting aims: empowering state legislatures to check federal power by triggering a narrowly focused Article V convention, while simultaneously trying to constrain that convention’s scope and mechanics to prevent it from becoming a broader, unpredictable constitutional rewrite; those two goals pull in opposite directions because robust delegation to states to initiate amendments makes it harder to enforce tight substantive and procedural limits on a multi-state convention.
The resolution attempts to thread a narrow needle: it asks for a convention while trying to pre-empt several well-known legal and political objections. But Article V is terse and silent on many mechanics the resolution claims to define.
For example, the resolution treats Congress’s role as purely ministerial and denies congressional authority to set convention rules — positions that courts have not squarely resolved and that other branches may contest. Similarly, while Wyoming insists on one-state/one-vote, Article V does not specify voting procedures, and other states or delegates could contest that interpretation.
The document’s recall and instruction clauses reinforce state control but raise practical enforcement questions. If delegates are recalled or instructed, who adjudicates disputes about breaches or interpretation of instructions?
If a state withdraws instructions mid-convention, does that alter the legitimacy of votes already cast? The resolution’s provision barring any amendment touching the Bill of Rights is a clear political statement, but it may not be legally binding on a convention or enforceable by courts if delegates or other states disagree.
Finally, the resolution’s preference for legislative ratification is advisory to Congress; Article V gives Congress the choice, and the resolution cannot compel one route over another.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.